Wagerworks bust stats

[KasinoKing]

As for Texas Hold'em, Bot behaviour is based only on the following rules and never on the value of your cards, the size of your Blind bet, your prior outcomes, your balance, or any other external factor.

If the red bot has a stronger hand than the blue bot before the flop, it will always call and raise your initial Blind bet. The blue bot will fold.

If the blue bot has a stronger hand than the red bot, then the red bot will randomly either call your initial Blind bet or fold. In the former case, referred to as a “rich pot”, the red bot is guaranteed to fold the next time around. So, if you subsequently CALL, RAISE or go ALL IN, the red bot will leave the game to you and the blue bot.

If either bot hand is in the lower quartile of standard initial hand rankings, the hand with the highest ranking is selected to be the strong hand; otherwise the best outcome is used. In the case where both bots have equally strong hands, one of the bots is randomly chosen.

After the flop, the remaining bot will always match your betting action. If you CHECK, the bot will check. If you BET, the bot will call, but will never raise. After the flop, you always control the betting.

I fully understand the odds are based over the long term, and I know the rules to the Shootout game.

But you didn't answer the question; Are you saying all the cards dealt in the shootout game are truly random as if dealt from a shuffled real deck of cards?

(A simple "Yes" or "No" will do!)
Cheers.

 

[elscrabinda]

Getting back on topic the rep needs to either deny that this player got the results that they did (not payback, bust %ages) or admit to a malfunction. As we have not seen the playlogs we cannot be sure of the evidence but if the results are correct then as thelawnet has pointed out it is about as categorical a proof that something is not right as they come. Remember the initial official response to the EH doubling case was very similar before they admitted that something was wrong.

I'm sure the rep will be willing to cooperate with the original poster to retrieve the play logs and post them here

 

[steadman]

If either bot hand is in the lower quartile of standard initial hand rankings, the hand with the highest ranking is selected to be the strong hand; otherwise the best outcome is used. In the case where both bots have equally strong hands, one of the bots is randomly chosen.

"otherwise the best outcome is used"

?

That seems to suggest the outcome is already known preflop, surely.

 

[soflat]

I fully understand the odds are based over the long term, and I know the rules to the Shootout game.

But you didn't answer the question; Are you saying all the cards dealt in the shootout game are truly random as if dealt from a shuffled real deck of cards?

(A simple "Yes" or "No" will do!)
Cheers.

The game rules say:

A new, standard 52-card deck is shuffled for each hand of play.

Each bot receives two random cards, just like the player.

Bots have no knowledge of the value of the player's initial two cards.

 

[thelawnet]

Guys,

thanks for taking the time to express your feelings. Though I understand that it frustrating to have a run of bad luck, I notice that no one ever comes on here to post the jackpots they've had, or the fact they they have won an unbelievably amount of times in a row. I get quite emotive when I read this stuff and although I am not sure whether a response will satisfy you all, I wanted to mail you with something.

If the data is correct, the data is proof that your casino is not fair.

The results posted are analagous to winning the $10,000 jackpot 20 times in a row: impossible.

However, the logs have not been produced yet.

I am not confident they are accurately reported.

But if they are, there is conclusive absolute proof of an unfair game, which is very serious indeed.

 

[thelawnet]

OK, I am confused.

The lawnet says the results posted are of the billions to one scennario.

The rep is saying there is nothing unusual there.

Both cant be right.

If the sample size is sufficient, as a question of fact, who is reading the results correctly?

I am correct. However, the OP's data is thus far useless, until he gets the actual logs. Until then this is a bit of a waste of time.

And by the way, it's not billions, it's billions of billions of billions of billions of billions of billions of billions of billions of billions ... to one

 

[thelawnet]

I fully understand the odds are based over the long term, and I know the rules to the Shootout game.

But you didn't answer the question; Are you saying all the cards dealt in the shootout game are truly random as if dealt from a shuffled real deck of cards?

(A simple "Yes" or "No" will do!)
Cheers.

The problem is the shootout game is very difficult to play. That's why you didn't do well I think. The theoretical edge is 0%, but nobody would achieve that in practice. That is why they offer it.

 

[thelawnet]

This is the way to test it. You can not ask for more.

To make any progress players need to post logs, if wagerworks allows player to request a such???)

If the 'raw' serverlogs are text-logs then I can help, I would not mind extracting the statistical data (I can make a program) to find the bust rates for the various dealer starting cards so I can make a list like the one post by nafanny29. Then some of the blackjack statistics experts (not me) can crunch the results.

Zoozie

You could mine the logs quite easily from the site itself - they are there, but unfortunately it's one page per game, so you would need a special spider to do it.

 

[Zoozie]

You could mine the logs quite easily from the site itself - they are there, but unfortunately it's one page per game, so you would need a special spider to do it.

Make you can ask the CS to retrieve a log for you. Some software has administration tools where you can do this. I asked Ladbrokes poker myself to do this over a year ago when there 'playcheck' was malfunction in the software.
I need a text/html file-type format if I have to make a parser to collect the data.

Zoozie

 

[soflat]

Getting back on topic the rep needs to either deny that this player got the results that they did (not payback, bust %ages) or admit to a malfunction. As we have not seen the playlogs we cannot be sure of the evidence but if the results are correct then as thelawnet has pointed out it is about as categorical a proof that something is not right as they come. Remember the initial official response to the EH doubling case was very similar before they admitted that something was wrong.

I'm sure the rep will be willing to cooperate with the original poster to retrieve the play logs and post them here

This case has another important similarity to the EH one.

Remember in the EH case there was a poster who claimed that the unfair play went back possibly as long as one year. But that poster never had the proof (or never shared it) so the case went away.

In this case also, the poster has no proof (not unless those log files are recovered). And I don't see WagerWorks coming forward with those files (just like EH).

These cases should be kept on the hush-hush until others can corroborate the evidence. Otherwise we never know because the casinos will just say that the rng is fair and the poster did not run enough trials to prove anything.

 

[thelawnet]

This case has another important similarity to the EH one.

Remember in the EH case there was a poster who claimed that the unfair play went back possibly as long as one year. But that poster never had the proof (or never shared it) so the case went away.

In this case also, the poster has no proof (not unless those log files are recovered). And I don't see WagerWorks coming forward with those files (just like EH).

These cases should be kept on the hush-hush until others can corroborate the evidence. Otherwise we never know because the casinos will just say that the rng is fair and the poster did not run enough trials to prove anything.

except in this case you can download your own logs as an essential part of the site for the whole of your time on there.

 

[steadman]

The problem is the shootout game is very difficult to play. That's why you didn't do well I think. The theoretical edge is 0%, but nobody would achieve that in practice. That is why they offer it.

I'm actually amazed that the edge can work out to a pretty exact 0%. The dealer strength is that there are two bots to choose from preflop but the player strength is that they can allin preflop or control the betting postflop (seeing as the bots are calling stations!). Mathematically it seems pretty odd that the edges supposedly cancel each other out.

 

[soflat]

except in this case you can download your own logs as an essential part of the site for the whole of your time on there.

OK, that's good news. Some of the other guys made it sound like a bit of a hassle to get the data.

Maybe the OP has been away and will be able to provide this important evidence soon after his return. In that case we don't need to rely on the WW/IGT rep to answer all these questions.

 

[thelawnet]

I'm actually amazed that the edge can work out to a pretty exact 0%. The dealer strength is that there are two bots to choose from preflop but the player strength is that they can allin preflop or control the betting postflop (seeing as the bots are calling stations!). Mathematically it seems pretty odd that the edges supposedly cancel each other out.

It is odd.

There is clearly an edge to the house from some rules (having the best of two hands), and to the players from others (being able to raise with good hands).

But you would think it might come to say 0.06% HA.

Just saying 0 HA implies it is a coin flip, which it isn't at all, because the betting decisions are very difficult. It is normal to express a house advantage to two decimal places, unless they are trying to falsely imply that it is a 50/50 type game. So they should say the HA is 0.00%, to be consistent with all the other games, which they quote like this.

I wonder what the real number is, it's clearly NOT zero. Whether it is 0.005% or -0.006% or whatever, it is a non-zero number because of the rules, it would be *impossible* to be exactly zero.

 

[tennis_balls]

And by the way, it's not billions, it's billions of billions of billions of billions of billions of billions of billions of billions of billions ... to one

Lloyd: What are the chances of a guy like you and a girl like me... ending up together?
Mary: Well, that's pretty difficult to say.
Lloyd: Hit me with it! I've come a long way to see you, Mary. The least you can do is level with me. What are my chances?
Mary: Not good.
Lloyd: You mean, not good like one out of a hundred?
Mary: I'd say more like one out of a million.
[pause]
Lloyd: So you're telling me there's a chance.

 

[KasinoKing]

Lloyd: What are the chances of a guy like you and a girl like me... ending up together?
Mary: Well, that's pretty difficult to say.
Lloyd: Hit me with it! I've come a long way to see you, Mary. The least you can do is level with me. What are my chances?
Mary: Not good.
Lloyd: You mean, not good like one out of a hundred?
Mary: I'd say more like one out of a million.
[pause]
Lloyd: So you're telling me there's a chance.

Love that movie! Appeals to my sense of humor... and my eternal optimism

 

[theprobe]

Hi Guys,

pleased to see this thread still going. There's obviously a lot of interets here and so there should be, if you truly believe there are NON-fair games from Wagerworks.

Nafanny, I think it's incorrect to deal with this matter on a forum but I would obviously receommend you speak with the relevant casinos with your findings. I did contact Virgin and they have not had any communication with you as yet.

They also have no record of you ever having played this game. I have also done a search on another casino site of Wagerworks you have mentioned and again can not find any evidence that you have played this month.

As I say, rather than post a worrying thread, feel free to contact your casino of choice, or the Alderney Gaming Commission and have them verify the validity of the game.

Kind regards


Michael

 

[Vesuvio]

As I say, rather than post a worrying thread, feel free to contact your casino of choice, or the Alderney Gaming Commission and have them verify the validity of the game.

Michael, as others have said it's genuinely a pleasant change to see a software company responding to customers.

However, assuming Nafanny does have the results he says he has then there's no need to go to Alderney or contact the casinos - they simply prove the game he played was rigged (or malfunctioned) when he played it. If that's the case it needs to be publicised as widely as possible as soon as possible, so forums are the best option.

Of course it all depends on the logs, so Nafanny needs to get hold of them asap. Any failure of Wagerworks to help in that would suggest guilt, but it's only fair to say that if Nafanny makes no effort to substantiate his claims we should give the casinos the benefit of the doubt.

 

[sharpfool]

Any news?